Dr. Margo Thorning is the campaign leader. The executive vice president and director of research for the Exxon-funded ACCF. And judging by Thorning's work to date, the business plan is to frighten men, women and children with facile expense projections that build a worse-case scenario on the energy-expense side without making any corrections whatever for the possibilities of conservation and innovation.

There are two fairly big problems here in terms of the unsavory manipulation of the democratic process. First, the ACCF and the AEEG are both front groups. When Thorning campaigns, she doesn't introduce herself as a paid representative for the American Gas Association, the American Petroleum Institute, Edison Electric Institute, Ford Motor Company and the Marathon Oil Corporation - even though that's who's paying her bills. She says she's a research director for a think tank - as if her opinions are somehow independent, impartial and weighted with academically derived evidence. That is, at the very least, misleading.

The other problem is that there is no second group out running an extraordinarily well-funded counter campaign. Say what you like about Al Gore and the success that he has had in calling attention to the issue of climate change, there is no massive lobby pleading for scientific rigour on this issue, no well-heeled campaign for sensible risk analysis - for a balanced calculation of how much energy prices might rise as opposed to how much it might cost, say, to rebuild Miami in the same way we are still rebuilding New Orleans.

Thus, we have a scenario in which policy makers are being lobbied directly in the halls of the Capitol and the hotels of D.C. while their constituents are being threatened with job losses and catastrophic energy bill increases.

So…. breaking news.
The gorical just announce a new fraud campaigne to be funded to the tune of 300 million.
” The Alliance for Climate Protection execute a new $300 million ad campaign on global warming set to start next week. ”

so as usual. you guys are wrong. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/27/60minutes/main3974389.shtml

Unfortunately troll, the effect of the $300 million the warmers spend will be negated if Exxon even spends a nickel due to the special magical powers of disinfo propagated by that most evil of corporations.

A couple of words on TV by some flaky overweight middleaged balding white guy from the CEI about GW will sends the public into paroxysms of confusion on the subject that not even $300 million will be able to counteract.

“When they launch a cross-country campaign to bash Congressional efforts to address climate change, they start with a big budget, liberally funded by the energy and manufacturing interests most heavily invested in cheap gas, oil and coal.”

Do you actually believe their “big budget” is bigger than that of the US Congress?

Let’s reframe your complaint from a more realistic perspective:

When they launch a cross-country campaign to promote the political agenda of climate change hysteria, they start with a big budget, liberally funded by taxpayers for the benefit of a self-perpetuating bloated bureaucracy and dubious special interest political pressure groups.

I believe version #2 more accurately describes the situation as it is.

A conspiracy of bureaucrats, climatologists, economists, doctors, environmentalists, etc. etc. etc. all over the world – a conspiracy dedicated to sending money into the pockets of Al Gore the Antichrist.

Warning: this thread has become a den of trolls. Anyone who wants to discuss the actual article would be well advised to avoid answering them and start a new line for discussion here.

…The other problem is that there is no second group out running an extraordinarily well-funded counter campaign…

So is DeSmogBlog about to broaden its mandate? :)

Or we could publicize economists who are trying to grapple with the question of what measures to take against global warming, like these folks: http://www.progressive-economics.ca/category/climate-change/

We need an equivalent of skepticalscience.com for these fields. A resource which provides pointers to scientific papers addressing arguments from “alternative energy sources are hopeless for anything” to “carbon tax money will be used to do something bad like helping the terrorists win”. All in one convenient place.

Then we can watch as the denialists are forced to broaden their conspiracy theory to include both climatologists and economists…

What’s this crap about a conspiracy theory. No serious scientist looks upon the AGW mania as a “conspiracy”. It is unfortunately, something much worse - mass hysteria akin to the Great Leap Forward, McCarthyism or the 17th century pursuit of witches.
———————————————————-
“Frank B’s head is fat” – Zog

Well serious scientists like Singer, Ball, et al of course! You know the folks who dont actually publish anything, though I should be fair, I should say they dont do any original research but are serious scientists of course! Sadly though it would be to much for them to take time off their PR tours.

Forgot to add. The following acadamies, councils and organizations of scientists, whos credibility rests in their stances on scientific issues have all endorced the IPCC viewpoint that humans are largely responsible for the increase in temperature to paraphrase badly. Here is that list, which of course doesnt include any credible scientists, either of course!

Joint science academies’ statement 2007
Joint science academies’ statement 2005
Joint science academies’ statement 2001
Network of African Science Academies
National Research Council, 2001
American Meteorological Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Astronomical Society
American Physical Society
Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006
National Center for Atmospheric Research
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
American Quaternary Association
Geological Society of America
American Chemical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
The Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
European Geosciences Union
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Geological Sciences
International Council for Science

Very interesting. Your list includes two organizations which I know for certain have NOT endorsed the IPCC “viewpoint”. That makes me a tad suspicious about your assertion regarding some of the others. Are you sure that you didn’t just pick names out of the yellow pages?

Incidently, I’ll bet that you know damned well that not all IPCC members have endorsed it either.

I’d be sure Singer is a member of at least one of those though i cant say for certain because I have not wasted any time getting details in Singer specificall. Naturally not everyone in a group scientists supports that the majority of its members finds credible and scientifically valid, but then there are some fringe doctors than say AIDS doesnt come from HIV either even if all medically oganizations have determined that is the cause. That said though, which 2 do you know for a fact have not supported the IPCC’s main conclusion and I’ll paste up their statement agreeing with the main IPCC conclusion or I’ll admit you are right and am mistaken

Yeah right, call it a “conspiracy” or a “hysteria” or whatever, it’s obvious that all the mainstream climatologists, economists, doctors, etc. etc. etc. are part of the great “warmist” hoax. Everything you know is a lie!

Anyway… once more, we need something like skepticalscience.com, except for the economic and alternative-energy “arguments”.

Here is an interesting historical article, “Is Industrial Civilization a Pyramid Scheme?” He reviews the original Ponzi scheme and continues:

…As any accountant can tell you, treating capital influx as income is a no-no. Any company that cashes out its capital stock (sells off its productive assets, like factories and infrastructure) and treats the result as income is going to go broke.

And here’s the connection with oil. The fossil fuels of the planet are a capital stock: they represent past solar income the planet received in its 4 billion year history, which wasn’t consumed at the time, but was locked away as fossil energy. (Some geologists believe that the vast quantities of oil and coal that we received as our endowment was made from sunlight that was turned into biomass before herbivores evolved to eat it.) We’re drawing down our capital stock and treating the inflow of money as income. Does this make our economy a pyramid scheme? Consider: anyone who offers you interest in exchange for a loan of money is betting that the economy will grow….

The comments also have some interesting points and links.

http://hnn.us/articles/47330.html

Even more interesting than the article is his link to the Encyclopedia of Earth, which I haven’t heard of before, but which might be a source of good quality information.

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_return_on_investment_(EROI)

http://www.eoearth.org/eoe/about

Welcome to the Encyclopedia of Earth, a new electronic reference about the Earth, its natural environments, and their interaction with society. The Encyclopedia is a free, fully searchable collection of articles written by scholars, professionals, educators, and experts who collaborate and review each other’s work. The articles are written in non-technical language and will be useful to students, educators, scholars, professionals, as well as to the general public….

"Fossil-fuel companies have spent millions funding anti-global-warming think tanks, purposely creating a climate of doubt around the science. DeSmogBlog is the antidote to that obfuscation." ~ BRYAN WALSH, TIME MAGAZINE